Minn. Stat. § 504B.375 is a court procedure that allows dwelling tenants and also “other regular occupants” to get a court order restoring them to their home after a lockout.
The first section-504B.375 appellate case won by an “other regular occupant” was Quinn v. LMC, 972 N.W.2d 881 (Minn. App. 2022). Kera Quinn lived for two years with Jamie Smith in an apartment owned by LMC and rented to Smith. Quinn repeatedly interacted with building staff. Quinn and Smith shared Smith’s key fob. Smith moved out on the last day of her lease but Quinn did not. LMC then deactivated the key fob to lock out Quinn. The court ruled that Quinn was an “other regular occupant” and ordered LMC to end the lockout. The ruling was based on a totality of the circumstances – LMC’s knowledge of Quinn’s occupancy, the length of the occupancy, and that the apartment was Quinn’s only home – despite the fact that Smith’s lease forbid other occupants.
In a recent case, Traore v. Sissoho, Terra Pointe Apartments et al, File No. A24-1204 (Minn. App. Mar. 3, 2025)(nonprecedential), Sissoho rented an apartment from Terra Pointe. Traore lived in Sissoho’s apartment for five months and made sporadic “rent” payments in return for living with Sissoho until they had an argument about how much rent was due. Sissoho ordered Traore to move out. Traore didn’t move. Sissoho then told Terra Pointe’s manager that Traore was an unwanted guest and should have his key fob deactivated. The manager complied and Traore was locked out. Traore sued both Sissoho and Terra Pointe under Minn. Stat. § 504B.375 but only prosecuted his claim against Terra Pointe.
The district court ruled that Traore did not meet the Quinn standard since [1] Terra Pointe knew nothing of Traore until Sissoho reported him as a guest, [2] Sissoho’s lease forbid other occupants, and [3] Traore’s occupancy was five months and not two years. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of Traore’s complaint.
I think Traore essentially sued the wrong entity. Unlike in Quinn, where tenant Smith was out of the picture, here Sissoho was the center of the picture. Sissoho knew about Traore, he made the agreement with Traore, Traore paid rent or rent-like payments to Sissoho, and Traore lived with Sissoho for 5/12 of Sissoho’s year-long lease.
As discussed in this essay (in Word with links to cited materials and PDF) Traore had a good case against Sissoho while his case against Terra Pointe was weak. First, Traore was a subtenant or a licensee of Sissoho, but not of Terra Pointe. Second, Traore’s other-regular-occupant claim under the Quinn rule was stronger against Sissoho than against Terra Pointe. By prosecuting Terra Pointe instead of Sissoho he created an uphill battle that others in his shoes should not replicate; they should prosecute their case against the tenant/roommate who instigates a lockout.
Finally, I review HOU702, the Minnesota Judicial Branch’s form complaint for Minn. Stat. § 504B.375 lawsuits. The form induces someone in Traore’s situation to sue the “owner” instead of the roommate. I suggest amendments to the form.
Birnberg Minnesota Legislative Newsletter 